A person makes what he wants to make. That includes a person who isn't making anything.
To say trading is about making money is not the whole story of course. There are many ways to make money other than participating in the financial markets. This goes along with a comment that was made earlier about the use of time.
What causes a person to spend the bulk of his productive life participating in the markets and having his mind constantly directed to improve what he is doing? It is not about the money. What it is about I cannot say for sure, but I feel an inner harmony when I acknowledge that I was meant to do this.
The idea of going to ever-more micro monitoring levels to improve the use of time doesn't strike a chord within me at present. That could change of course. I do consider my choice of where I currently operate in the market as a blending of the opportunities I see and what I am able to handle. The choice has led me to operating intraday and arbitrarily to the 5 minute bars. I do see that also sufficient are other bar durations (3, 4, 6, . . . , 10), and perhaps bars not derived from time would serve too, although admittedly that is not an area I have explored.
In any event, within the context of where I've chosen to operate, there are places and times where I am called to take action. By "take action" I mean giving an order to my execution software. We know we are always "doing" in between actions. We have put the pathway as G(M)-->A-->D-->A. If I were to put in a few simple words my "method" without concern for precision, I would say that I monitor the current price bar in relation to the prior bar or prior 2-3 bars and draw rays or follow rays already drawn and projected from prior ends of bars; count volume and compare to the prior volume and volume benchmarks; all within a larger context known before the beginning of the day.
Where does the micro-monitoring fit in? For me, only when looking within the current price bar is useful. When is it useful? When I know I may be called upon to act. I will know that I may need to act without micro-monitoring. What I know always is where I operate. What I also know is what the usual duration is between actions. Micro-monitoring does not affect the usual duration. None of the above comments are about SCT or RHR or "always-in" trading.
There is the idea that improving is an iterative process of doing things more effectively and efficiently in terms of using one's time to extract all that is available in the market as measured by the number of points made relative to the H/L range using maximum trade size without liquidity issues. For shorthand we call it "SCT". To seamlessly go from one money-making action to another we add micro-monitoring: squeeze, neutral, stretch; two pair and spike; time and sales prints; DOM activity. These are all added to our GADA pathway. We gather more and have more to analyze. GADA is an intellectual pathway. It (SCT) is an expansion of what intellectually we are able to handle. We extract more the more we can handle.
For me, GADA doesn't tell the whole picture. We all admit as much when we say we have to "manage" our emotions to succeed. It has been said that gathering data (monitoring) is sensing and with sensing comes emotions. We are to be aware of our emotions and to replace the ones that are not beneficial with the ones we want. No doubt that statement is as helpful as the trading maxim: "let your profits run and cut your losses short." Not much trading experience is required to recognize the truth of that maxim; but recognition is the beginning of the journey and not the end.
My point is there is a concurrent and separate pathway to GADA. Both pathways begin at the same place--monitoring, or more specifically, Sensing, SADA. Sensing gives us color, size (length/width), movement (direction and how fast), shape (patterns), etc. The "A" after the "S" in SADA takes us intellectually to understand something from what we sense. There is a whirlwind of questions that pop up and we think the lack of answers to them is the cause of why our results fall short from what we intellectually know about what we do. It is a constant nagging feeling of missing something.
What is the other, non-intellectual, pathway from Sensing? The analog to the second "A" in SADA is "E", Emote or Emoting. The pathway continues and eventually connects to the intellectual pathway prior to taking action. What lies along this non-intellectual pathway is a mystery to me. That it exists is a feeling that is unshakeable as the feeling I am here now typing on this keyboard. No "cogito ergo sum" revelation is necessary.
To say that trading is not entirely an intellectual activity is an understatement. The same can be said about anything that people do. For me, SCT doesn't change what trading is, which is to apply who I am to do the work I am meant to do. It is about bringing out into this physical world something from the non-physical world. It is a mysterious process that goes beyond trading and making money. It cannot be conveyed to another yet everyone has access to it. One can know it, however, only by using it to bring forth a result. Without the result, it is all just intellectual speculation; no doubt interesting but about as useful and as worthy as a game of chess.
To say trading is about making money is not the whole story of course. There are many ways to make money other than participating in the financial markets. This goes along with a comment that was made earlier about the use of time.
What causes a person to spend the bulk of his productive life participating in the markets and having his mind constantly directed to improve what he is doing? It is not about the money. What it is about I cannot say for sure, but I feel an inner harmony when I acknowledge that I was meant to do this.
The idea of going to ever-more micro monitoring levels to improve the use of time doesn't strike a chord within me at present. That could change of course. I do consider my choice of where I currently operate in the market as a blending of the opportunities I see and what I am able to handle. The choice has led me to operating intraday and arbitrarily to the 5 minute bars. I do see that also sufficient are other bar durations (3, 4, 6, . . . , 10), and perhaps bars not derived from time would serve too, although admittedly that is not an area I have explored.
In any event, within the context of where I've chosen to operate, there are places and times where I am called to take action. By "take action" I mean giving an order to my execution software. We know we are always "doing" in between actions. We have put the pathway as G(M)-->A-->D-->A. If I were to put in a few simple words my "method" without concern for precision, I would say that I monitor the current price bar in relation to the prior bar or prior 2-3 bars and draw rays or follow rays already drawn and projected from prior ends of bars; count volume and compare to the prior volume and volume benchmarks; all within a larger context known before the beginning of the day.
Where does the micro-monitoring fit in? For me, only when looking within the current price bar is useful. When is it useful? When I know I may be called upon to act. I will know that I may need to act without micro-monitoring. What I know always is where I operate. What I also know is what the usual duration is between actions. Micro-monitoring does not affect the usual duration. None of the above comments are about SCT or RHR or "always-in" trading.
There is the idea that improving is an iterative process of doing things more effectively and efficiently in terms of using one's time to extract all that is available in the market as measured by the number of points made relative to the H/L range using maximum trade size without liquidity issues. For shorthand we call it "SCT". To seamlessly go from one money-making action to another we add micro-monitoring: squeeze, neutral, stretch; two pair and spike; time and sales prints; DOM activity. These are all added to our GADA pathway. We gather more and have more to analyze. GADA is an intellectual pathway. It (SCT) is an expansion of what intellectually we are able to handle. We extract more the more we can handle.
For me, GADA doesn't tell the whole picture. We all admit as much when we say we have to "manage" our emotions to succeed. It has been said that gathering data (monitoring) is sensing and with sensing comes emotions. We are to be aware of our emotions and to replace the ones that are not beneficial with the ones we want. No doubt that statement is as helpful as the trading maxim: "let your profits run and cut your losses short." Not much trading experience is required to recognize the truth of that maxim; but recognition is the beginning of the journey and not the end.
My point is there is a concurrent and separate pathway to GADA. Both pathways begin at the same place--monitoring, or more specifically, Sensing, SADA. Sensing gives us color, size (length/width), movement (direction and how fast), shape (patterns), etc. The "A" after the "S" in SADA takes us intellectually to understand something from what we sense. There is a whirlwind of questions that pop up and we think the lack of answers to them is the cause of why our results fall short from what we intellectually know about what we do. It is a constant nagging feeling of missing something.
What is the other, non-intellectual, pathway from Sensing? The analog to the second "A" in SADA is "E", Emote or Emoting. The pathway continues and eventually connects to the intellectual pathway prior to taking action. What lies along this non-intellectual pathway is a mystery to me. That it exists is a feeling that is unshakeable as the feeling I am here now typing on this keyboard. No "cogito ergo sum" revelation is necessary.
To say that trading is not entirely an intellectual activity is an understatement. The same can be said about anything that people do. For me, SCT doesn't change what trading is, which is to apply who I am to do the work I am meant to do. It is about bringing out into this physical world something from the non-physical world. It is a mysterious process that goes beyond trading and making money. It cannot be conveyed to another yet everyone has access to it. One can know it, however, only by using it to bring forth a result. Without the result, it is all just intellectual speculation; no doubt interesting but about as useful and as worthy as a game of chess.
